This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Should the US have complusory voting?

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Really? How come it never seems to work like that in reality?

Do you have an example of a politician in this country (I'm talking state or national, not some city dogcatcher) with a very low approval rating who was reelected? Because as I see it, the only way that can happen is if the opposition splits its vote, or if the opposition nominates someone who is even more unacceptable to the electorate.

Are you coming to bed?I can't. This is important.What?Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Re: Should the US have complusory voting?

Originally Posted by Kandahar

OK, well let's see the evidence that show that this DOES have an impact. You are the one claiming that compulsory voting leads to more informed decisions and that this has been demonstrated, so let's see the studies.

Well gimme a sec. I'm not used to people actually asking for evidence on this forum. It's usually a "my unsubstantiated opinion is better than your substantiated opinion" type place.

A lot more than you can learn from two hours waiting in line and filling in bubbles for vaguely familiar names. Actually I guess you can learn a bit from that too, but probably not the kind of knowledge you're talking about.

Interesting assumption. How come anyone knows anything before going to an election then?

Your hyperbolization is getting a bit ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Bucky

The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

Re: Should the US have complusory voting?

Is it really? If a person pays their taxes, does that not signify they recognize the legitimacy of the government? Voting has nowhere near as much power as money.

No, because they take our taxes at gun point. Don't pay your taxes and see what happens. It's not voluntary.

I think in terms of the preservation of the Republic, you are better served endorsing other changes than forced voting because forced voting does not really address some of the real problems. You should advocate going after the laws and regulations which have closed the system off and prevent true political competition. Why are there only 2 candidates at the major debates (not primaries I mean, but like the Presidential debate which has R and D only)? Why are corporations unfettered when it comes to campaign contributions, but the individual limited in how they can spend their personal money for candidates they like? Why is the press so biased and unwilling to report on all the candidates? There are a lot of problems, and in many ways the voter apathy comes from some belief that they are stuck in a system they cannot affect. If we can open up the political system, allow true political competition, and have proper reporting by the press; we will have gone much further in solving the problem of apathy and uneducated decision making than we will by forcing people to vote. Also, I like IRV.

You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville

"I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Re: Should the US have complusory voting?

I could agree to this if we received a quantity of votes based on the number of dollars in taxes we paid. So if we are voting in a federal election our federal income taxes would come into play. Since I am forced to pay about 40K per year I should have 40K votes. On the local level I pay state taxes. So for state races I might have roughly 3K votes to spend as I wish. If you pay no taxes you get one, and only one, vote.

Re: Should the US have complusory voting?

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Do you have an example of a politician in this country (I'm talking state or national, not some city dogcatcher) with a very low approval rating who was reelected? Because as I see it, the only way that can happen is if the opposition splits its vote, or if the opposition nominates someone who is even more unacceptable to the electorate.

Do you remember a certain election in which man named Bush beat out a man named Gore without actually carrying the popular vote?

Originally Posted by Bucky

The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

Re: Should the US have complusory voting?

Originally Posted by Ikari

No, because they take our taxes at gun point. Don't pay your taxes and see what happens. It's not voluntary.

The whole "gun point" hyperbole is kind of tired. If I don't pay my taxes, they will fine me, and if I don't pay the fine, they will throw me in jail. So what? I could choose not to pay my taxes, they are not going to kill me as "at gun point" implies. I can certainly protest in jail. If enough people did it, then the government would fall through.

If we can open up the political system, allow true political competition, and have proper reporting by the press; we will have gone much further in solving the problem of apathy and uneducated decision making than we will by forcing people to vote. Also, I like IRV.

Ideology. Just head in the clouds, abstract notions. So many things we "should" do, but will never happen. At least with compulsory voting we can get a larger segment of the population involved in the process.

Originally Posted by Bucky

The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

Re: Should the US have complusory voting?

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

The whole "gun point" hyperbole is kind of tired. If I don't pay my taxes, they will fine me, and if I don't pay the fine, they will throw me in jail. So what? I could choose not to pay my taxes, they are not going to kill me as "at gun point" implies. I can certainly protest in jail. If enough people did it, then the government would fall through.

At gun point implies government force. How do they take you to jail? If you resist, what happens? Ultimately everything is backed by a gun. Just ask Randy Weaver.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Ideology. Just head in the clouds, abstract notions. So many things we "should" do, but will never happen. At least with compulsory voting we can get a larger segment of the population involved in the process.

The same can be said about your proposal. It's not going to happen, not in this country. But if we're talking about, in general, ways to improve the system. My suggestions would go a lot further than yours in accomplishing those goals.

You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville

"I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Re: Should the US have complusory voting?

Because of compulsory voting? I don't think so. And those are exceptions to the list of countries you mentioned.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
"When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."